Legal Gay Marriage in the United States- yes or no?

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Quote the law that says it was illegal.

Constitution of Virginia - Article I. Bill of Rights
Virginia Constitution:

Article I. Bill of Rights
Section 15-A. Marriage
That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage.



This made it illegal for same-sex couples to enter into Civil Marriage (or even a Civil Union) in the State or for the State to recognize such a status from another state.

That does not mean that it existed in the criminal code, it was illegal under civil law.


>>>>

The act of getting "married" and having that marriage "legally recognized" are two different things. The law you cited does not forbid two gays from "getting married." It simply says the State refused to "recognize " it.

That is two different things.

No Zombie troll bots welcome

 

[Chuz Life]

The act of getting "married" and having that marriage "legally recognized" are two different things. The law you cited does not forbid two gays from "getting married." It simply says the State refused to "recognize " it.

That is two different things.

I've talked about Civil Marriage and I've attempted to be careful to distinguish it from Religious Marriage (see the very post you quoted).

Yes, such laws as the one I quoted made it illegal for same-sex couples to enter into Civil Marriage. Illegal, but not criminal.


You are correct. Religious Marriage was not illegal. But that isn't what was being discussed, Civil Marriage was and yes that law made it illegal.


>>>>

What penalties would a gay couple face for getting married despite that law?

 

[Lysistrata]

The act of getting "married" and having that marriage "legally recognized" are two different things. The law you cited does not forbid two gays from "getting married." It simply says the State refused to "recognize " it.

That is two different things.

I've talked about Civil Marriage and I've attempted to be careful to distinguish it from Religious Marriage (see the very post you quoted).

Yes, such laws as the one I quoted made it illegal for same-sex couples to enter into Civil Marriage. Illegal, but not criminal.


You are correct. Religious Marriage was not illegal. But that isn't what was being discussed, Civil Marriage was and yes that law made it illegal.


>>>>

What penalties would a gay couple face for getting married despite that law?

People of the same sex may get married now and attain all the rights and privileges of entering into a civil lawful marriage. Just what is the problem?
Still got that crazy lady up there, I see. She needs meds. You must know who she is. Get help for her.

 

[Syriusly]

Civil Unions will protect their partners...

Marriage is between a man and a woman...

Pretty simple, but somehow we manage to complicate it...

And by complicate it- you managed to try to outlaw both civil unions and marriage for gays.

Georgia
(a) This state shall recognize as marriage only the union of man and woman. Marriages between persons of the same sex are prohibited in this state.
(b) No union between persons of the same sex shall be recognized by this state as entitled to the benefits of marriage. This state shall not give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other state or jurisdiction respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other state or jurisdiction. The courts of this state shall have no jurisdiction to grant a divorce or separate maintenance with respect to any such relationship or otherwise to consider or rule on any of the parties' respective rights arising as a result of or in connection with such relationship.[3]

I was pretty clear, I know we could argue over it, but its pretty simple, if you accept it great, if you don’t great...

Oh you were pretty clear- I was just pointing out that your claim that civil unions would protect partners was false- and that the same people who were against equal treatment in marriage for gay couples- also opposed civil unions- for the same reason.

 

[jillian]

Simple question- simple unscientific poll- do you think that same gender couples in the United States should be able to legally marry?

It already exists. And people already legally marry,

So what on earth are you talking about, hon?

 

[jillian]

Civil Unions will protect their partners...

Marriage is between a man and a woman...

Pretty simple, but somehow we manage to complicate it...

And by complicate it- you managed to try to outlaw both civil unions and marriage for gays.

Georgia
(a) This state shall recognize as marriage only the union of man and woman. Marriages between persons of the same sex are prohibited in this state.
(b) No union between persons of the same sex shall be recognized by this state as entitled to the benefits of marriage. This state shall not give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other state or jurisdiction respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other state or jurisdiction. The courts of this state shall have no jurisdiction to grant a divorce or separate maintenance with respect to any such relationship or otherwise to consider or rule on any of the parties' respective rights arising as a result of or in connection with such relationship.[3]

I was pretty clear, I know we could argue over it, but its pretty simple, if you accept it great, if you don’t great...

Oh you were pretty clear- I was just pointing out that your claim that civil unions would protect partners was false- and that the same people who were against equal treatment in marriage for gay couples- also opposed civil unions- for the same reason.

they seem to hate that whole equal protection clause of the constitution.

 

[Syriusly]

The act of getting "married" and having that marriage "legally recognized" are two different things. The law you cited does not forbid two gays from "getting married." It simply says the State refused to "recognize " it.

That is two different things.

I've talked about Civil Marriage and I've attempted to be careful to distinguish it from Religious Marriage (see the very post you quoted).

Yes, such laws as the one I quoted made it illegal for same-sex couples to enter into Civil Marriage. Illegal, but not criminal.


You are correct. Religious Marriage was not illegal. But that isn't what was being discussed, Civil Marriage was and yes that law made it illegal.


>>>>

What penalties would a gay couple face for getting married despite that law?

The laws passed to prevent gay couples from legally marrying- prevented gay couples from legally marrying- so that would be impossible.

 

[WorldWatcher]

What penalties would a gay couple face for getting married despite that law?

There seems to be a disconnect, same-sex couples couldn't get a Civil Marriage under that law, nor could they get a Civil Union.



>>>>

 

[bodecea]

Simple question- simple unscientific poll- do you think that same gender couples in the United States should be able to legally marry?

Just as Dred Scott learned, it’s the law of the land.

Fits right in with certain people have no rights that the straight man is bound to respect........

 

[bodecea]

Simple question- simple unscientific poll- do you think that same gender couples in the United States should be able to legally marry?

Just as Dred Scott learned, it’s the law of the land.

Yeah because treating gay couples equally before the law is the exact same thing as not treating a black man equally before the law. Thank you Roy Moore for your opinion.

View attachment 163461

You don’t draw lines of morality?

Incest, polygamy, pedophillia all OK with you?

I just know history better so I know where the line should be.

Are you unable to tell the difference?

 

[bodecea]

No leader in history - Buddha, Jesus, Mohammed, Mao, Stalin, Churchill, Washington, Lincoln, MLK, etc etc etc ever hinted that homosexuals should be allowed to marry.

Suddenly we have a generation that thinks it’s smarter than everyone in human history that ever lived.

How many of them hinted that homosexuals should be prevented from marrying?

 

[bodecea]

Just as Dred Scott learned, it’s the law of the land.

Yeah because treating gay couples equally before the law is the exact same thing as not treating a black man equally before the law. Thank you Roy Moore for your opinion.

View attachment 163461

You don’t draw lines of morality?

Incest, polygamy, pedophillia all OK with you?

I just know history better so I know where the line should be.

I bet you are okay with men in their 30s preying on teens at the mall, amirite?

Hilarious you establish a sexual moral code in this thread

Call me crazy but I think preying on teens is wrong.

It is a scary thing to read posts here every once in a while that show that the poster is unclear on the MAJOR differences between interactions between consenting adults.........and preying on those who cannot consent such as children and animals.

 

[bodecea]

Gay men are still men. Gay women are still women.

And biology still dictates that men are created to mate with women. Not men with men, not women with women. Homosexuality is a biological defect, not a normal, proper condition.

So marriage is ONLY about mating sexually in a set way?

 

[bodecea]

You don’t draw lines of morality?

Incest, polygamy, pedophillia all OK with you?

I just know history better so I know where the line should be.

I bet you are okay with men in their 30s preying on teens at the mall, amirite?

Hilarious you establish a sexual moral code in this thread

Call me crazy but I think preying on teens is wrong.

And I think 2 men being able to adopt little boys and girls is wrong.

Fair enough though I don't agree with you. You are reacting emotionally based on what you've been fed. I'd say the vast majority of gay couples aren't interested in preying on children while the vast majority of grown men that prey on children are interested in preying on children.

And sad to say that so many of them are the hetero male family members and friends of those 1 in 4 girls sexually abused before they reach the age of majority.

 

[bodecea]

I bet you are okay with men in their 30s preying on teens at the mall, amirite?

Hilarious you establish a sexual moral code in this thread

Call me crazy but I think preying on teens is wrong.

And I think 2 men being able to adopt little boys and girls is wrong.

Fair enough though I don't agree with you. You are reacting emotionally based on what you've been fed. I'd say the vast majority of gay couples aren't interested in preying on children while the vast majority of grown men that prey on children are interested in preying on children.

I have history and every leader in history on my side.

Is this the same history that is full of slavery and women and children as chattel?

 

[bodecea]

Can the far left drones here show anyone that was arrest for being in an illegal gay "marriage"?

Also you drones realize that the marriage license was born out of racism right?

Be that as it may, you still need a license to be legally married...

However, churches have been marrying folks long before the establishment of the US, and when the US passes to the dust bin of history, unincorporated churches will still marry folks that know the difference between what is "legal" and what is "lawful."

We shall see how many of them marry gay folks, or indeed, how many gay folk even wish to get married at that point.

What is the difference between legal and lawful as it applies to same sex couples? The constitution doesn't define anyone as "real" men or women. Are you saying gay people aren't real?

I'm saying that marriage exists as a lawful institution to create children. Therefor it doesn't exist for gay people. The nation state need not extend "legal" protection, but if it wants to, I don't really care.

That is all. It is that simple.

This has been understood by all people, in all cultures, throughout the planet, for millennia. It is common sense. People get married to start families and form communities. That is the purpose of marriage. To bond different families together.

The families of gay couples will not have grandchildren to unite them, and thus, there is no lawful reason to be bonded. I'm talking about "natural law," nothing to do with the nation state.

This is not to say that homosexual folks don't have a proper role in society as teachers, writers, artists, politicians, military leaders, sports stars, entertainers, etc. Some of my mentors, idols and most intelligent men and women in the history of the planet have been gay, but they never made any pretenses about "starting families." Ever. All of them had much grander aspirations.

Heteros all have that nasty biological drive. LGBT's are freed from such a burdens as reproduction and child rearing, it enables them to give civilization their talents and gifts to the community at large. To hold them back with trivialities of families and all that other nonsense? That's a crime against our civilization and just silliness. Why would intelligent ones even care about such things?

Perhaps a more fair system would be marriage tax breaks and LGBT tax breaks?

"Marriage exists as a lawful institution to create children".....so having children is a requirement of marriage? Do we dissolve the marriages of those who do not have children? Do we require those who have children to get married?

 

[bodecea]

No leader in history - Buddha, Jesus, Mohammed, Mao, Stalin, Churchill, Washington, Lincoln, MLK, etc etc etc ever hinted that homosexuals should be allowed to marry.

Suddenly we have a generation that thinks it’s smarter than everyone in human history that ever lived.

Jesus never said gays couldn't marry. Interesting, but wrong, that you compare him with Stalin. Shows you have a lot in common with Stalin.

Your reading comprehension skills are 3rd grade level.

And you using Jesus as a tool shows a lack of humility

Jesus is one of a million leaders in history I can list who never even hinted homos should marry.

He never even hinted that slavery should go away either.
He never even hinted that people of different religions should marry either.
He DID hint that those who divorced should never marry again.

 

[bodecea]

Gay men are still men. Gay women are still women.

And biology still dictates that men are created to mate with women. Not men with men, not women with women. Homosexuality is a biological defect, not a normal, proper condition.

Defect isn't the right word. Many straight people make poor and even horrible parents. I wonder if you'd call them defective. Biologically, all mammals have instances of same sex couples. Biologically speaking, they could exist to pick up the parenting slack.

Why is this so important to you though? I never have understood this fear of gay people.

Biologically all mammals have instances of eating their young too.

Well, we certainly have many examples of hetero humans killing or sexually abusing their young. Primarily heterosexual FATHERS.

 

[Syriusly]

Gay men are still men. Gay women are still women.

And biology still dictates that men are created to mate with women. Not men with men, not women with women. Homosexuality is a biological defect, not a normal, proper condition.

So marriage is ONLY about mating sexually in a set way?

I happen to be reading a book on sex that is discussing sex in Medieval Europe- and how the Catholic Church in quite some detail laid out exactly what set way was 'legally' acceptable under canon.

Sex between a man and a wife- but only:

• In the missionary position- no other position
• No oral sex
• No anal sex
• No mutual masturbation
  
• No sex on Sundays
• No sex on Saints days
• No sex in the daylight
• No sex while seeing your wife nude
• No sex while pregnant
• No use of birth control- including no 'spilling of the seed'

And of course sex between two men was forbidden- as was masturbation and rape and bestiality- pretty much all lumped together.

 

[bodecea]

Episcopal Church approves gay marriage

The Episcopal Church's Bishop of Edinburgh, The Right Reverend Dr John Armes, said: "I am very pleased for the couples who can now have their relationships recognised by the church and blessed by God.

"I'm also pleased for what this means about our church and the way we have been able to do this. But obviously any change like this creates pain and hurt in some as well, so as a bishop of the church I feel for them."

All that this tells us is that the corrupt Episcopal church has openly and willfully rebelled against the God that it fraudulently claims to serve and worship.

So...you are the expert to tell the Episcopal Church how they should run their religion.....